9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1434 - SC - Indian LawsWhether prior sanction for prosecution qua allegation of corruption in respect of a public servants is required before setting in motion even the investigative process under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? Held that - Merely because the appellant has roped in respondent No.1 in the complaint is not sufficient ground to allow his name to be included as such. The complaint is categorical, the role of Secretary, PHED and the Principal Secretary has been questioned. That is the mindset with which the complainant knocked the doors of the criminal courts - There was no allegation in respect of any role played by the Secretary/Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister. It cannot be said to be a mere mis-description of name, which can be corrected. It cannot be the stand of the appellant that willy-nilly somehow, respondent No.1 must remain arrayed as an accused in those proceedings, even though the proceedings before the Magistrate are at the stage of only whether there should be a direction for investigation or not. It is not that every officer in the Government has to be arrayed in respect of any role performed or not. The mere presence in one meeting of respondent No.1 and that too when he was not a signatory and really had no role to play in that capacity, as apparent from the minutes, cannot be now used to justify his name being included as an accused. This is clearly an afterthought. It is not for the appellant to question as to which officer should or should not be present. Respondent No.1 needs to be struck off from the array of parties both in the present proceedings and consequently in the complaint - if a situation arises where investigation is directed u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and some material comes to light to array respondent No.1 as an accused, our order would not come in the way. The matter is referred to a larger Bench - application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Requirement of prior sanction for prosecution of public servants before initiating investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. 2. Examination of the role and designation of the accused public servant. 3. Application of judicial mind by the Magistrate while ordering an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. 4. Divergence of judicial opinions on the necessity of prior sanction under the P.C. Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Requirement of Prior Sanction for Prosecution: The primary legal issue addressed is whether prior sanction for prosecution is required before initiating the investigative process under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for allegations of corruption against public servants. The Special Judge had closed the complaint due to the absence of prior sanction as mandated under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) and Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. This decision was supported by the Supreme Court's judgment in Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, which held that no investigation could be initiated without prior sanction. The appellant contested this, arguing that prior sanction is only required at the stage of taking cognizance and not during the initial investigation phase. 2. Examination of the Role and Designation of the Accused Public Servant: The complaint involved several high-ranking officials, including the Principal Secretary to the Government P.H.E.D. and the Chief Minister, among others. It was alleged that a conspiracy in the tender process for drinking water projects led to a loss of government funds. However, it was revealed that the first respondent was not holding the alleged positions at the relevant time but was the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister. The Special Judge's order was challenged, leading to a revision petition, which was dismissed, prompting the current Special Leave Petition. 3. Application of Judicial Mind by the Magistrate: The Supreme Court examined whether the Magistrate, while exercising powers under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., could act mechanically or must apply judicial mind. It was emphasized that the Magistrate must apply his mind before ordering an investigation, ensuring that the process is not carried out in a casual manner. This was supported by the judgments in Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat and Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, which required the Magistrate to weigh the credibility of information before ordering an investigation. 4. Divergence of Judicial Opinions: The Court noted a divergence of opinions in previous judgments regarding the necessity of prior sanction under the P.C. Act. While several judgments, such as R.R. Chari v. State of U.P. and Devarapally Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, established that ordering an investigation under Section 156(3) does not amount to taking cognizance, the judgments in Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa and L. Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka held otherwise, requiring prior sanction even for initiating an investigation. This divergence necessitated a reference to a larger Bench for resolution. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the issue of whether prior sanction is required for initiating an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. in cases involving public servants under the P.C. Act needs to be settled by a larger Bench. The Court directed that the papers be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate action. Additionally, the Court allowed the application to strike off the first respondent from the array of parties, clarifying that if material evidence arises during the investigation, the respondent could be included later. Separate Judgment: In Criminal Appeal No. 458 of 2018, the Court granted leave and referred the matter to a larger Bench along with SLP (Crl.) No. 5838/2014, consistent with the judgment passed.
|
